Welcome to Bimmerfest -- The #1 Online Community for BMW related information! Please enjoy the discussion forums below and share your experiences with the 200,000 current, new and past BMW owners. The forums are broken out by car model and into other special interest sections such as BMW European Delivery and a special forum to voice your questions to the many BMW dealers on the site to assist our members!

Please follow the links below to help get you started!

Go Back   Bimmerfest - BMW Forums > BMW Model Discussions > 3 Series / 4 Series > F30 / F31 / F32 / F33 (2012 - current)

F30 / F31 / F32 / F33 (2012 - current)
The sixth generation 3 series, chassis code F30. 2013 model year 328i and 335i sedans now in production. Read the F30 frequently asked question thread for all your basic question and dive into all the details in the ultimate F30 information thread.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:22 PM
bmw_or_audi bmw_or_audi is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: California
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 898
Mein Auto: Passat 1.8T MT
What the 320 could have been

The marketing aspect of this has been debated to death already in other threads.

But in terms of engine specs, I think BMW could have done a lot better.

The facts: 180Hp/200lb-ft. But it seems to have everything the 328i has, i.e., VANOS & valvetronic. Is the only difference the turbo? Or maybe that is even the same and it is simply coded to produce less boost? The previous and nearly obsolete Audi/VW 2.0T develops 200Hp/207lb-ft and I don't even think it has variable valve technology. So what a seriously neutered and wasted engine is the 2.0T in the 320. It's a shame, really.

What sucks: it is expected to have the same mpgs as the more powerful version, which is not really a surprise since displacement is the same.

I think BMW was really lazy and considered only marketing. They could have used a smaller engine, with the same amount of power, but with higher efficiency. Audi has a 1.8T that develops 170Hp/236lb-ft and gets 40+mpg on the freeway. Now that is a power downgrade well worth considering. It makes sense. Perhaps BMW doesn't have the resources to develop yet another engine? Perhaps it is coming in 2014?

A 320i with such an engine would be a winner, not a castrated 328 for the badge whores.
Reply With Quote
Ads by Google
  #2  
Old 02-01-2013, 07:23 AM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,223
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi View Post
The marketing aspect of this has been debated to death already in other threads.

But in terms of engine specs, I think BMW could have done a lot better.

The facts: 180Hp/200lb-ft. But it seems to have everything the 328i has, i.e., VANOS & valvetronic. Is the only difference the turbo? Or maybe that is even the same and it is simply coded to produce less boost? The previous and nearly obsolete Audi/VW 2.0T develops 200Hp/207lb-ft and I don't even think it has variable valve technology. So what a seriously neutered and wasted engine is the 2.0T in the 320. It's a shame, really.

What sucks: it is expected to have the same mpgs as the more powerful version, which is not really a surprise since displacement is the same.

I think BMW was really lazy and considered only marketing. They could have used a smaller engine, with the same amount of power, but with higher efficiency. Audi has a 1.8T that develops 170Hp/236lb-ft and gets 40+mpg on the freeway. Now that is a power downgrade well worth considering. It makes sense. Perhaps BMW doesn't have the resources to develop yet another engine? Perhaps it is coming in 2014?

A 320i with such an engine would be a winner, not a castrated 328 for the badge whores.
Its largely the pistons being different which causes the issue. It nets a higher compression ratio which is less boost friendly. Tuners can net close to the same power but not exactly as they use less boost.

But I am willing to bet this engine makes more than 180hp, wait for the dynos to confirm.

Also, the EPA info is fishy. This car sold in different markets, owners find a clear MPG advantage with the 320 over the 328.
__________________
'98 M Roadster+'06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt
'11 Saab 9-3 XWD
'13 M-Sport 328i 6mt FOR SALE


E36/7: Dinan/RMS stage 2+ blower@13lbs of BOOST! 18" BBS LM's, too much more to list
F30: ForgeStar F14 19's summer-OZ Superleggera 17's winter/Rogue Catback/Integral Audio/AFE intake scoop/BMS stage 1
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-01-2013, 07:43 AM
tim330i's Avatar
tim330i tim330i is offline
Administrator
Location: Boston
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,760
Mein Auto: Ti Silver 03 M3
As pointed out above the difference is the pistons. The exact difference is not clear to me as BMW USA lists the compression ratio the same. The turbo and everything else are 100% the same. I did a part number comparison here -

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=670647

Tim
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-01-2013, 07:46 AM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,223
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim330i View Post
As pointed out above the difference is the pistons. The exact difference is not clear to me as BMW USA lists the compression ratio the same. The turbo and everything else are 100% the same. I did a part number comparison here -

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=670647

Tim
Other sources have stated the compression ratio is higher, over 11:1.
__________________
'98 M Roadster+'06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt
'11 Saab 9-3 XWD
'13 M-Sport 328i 6mt FOR SALE


E36/7: Dinan/RMS stage 2+ blower@13lbs of BOOST! 18" BBS LM's, too much more to list
F30: ForgeStar F14 19's summer-OZ Superleggera 17's winter/Rogue Catback/Integral Audio/AFE intake scoop/BMS stage 1
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-01-2013, 07:48 AM
tim330i's Avatar
tim330i tim330i is offline
Administrator
Location: Boston
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,760
Mein Auto: Ti Silver 03 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen View Post
Other sources have stated the compression ratio is higher, over 11:1.
I doubt it is over 11:1. I'm thinking BMWUSA.com is wrong, again and it is 11:1. I'll see what I can find out.

Tim
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-01-2013, 07:58 AM
tim330i's Avatar
tim330i tim330i is offline
Administrator
Location: Boston
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,760
Mein Auto: Ti Silver 03 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen View Post
Other sources have stated the compression ratio is higher, over 11:1.
Confirmed. The compression ratio is 10:1.

Tim
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-01-2013, 08:25 AM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,223
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim330i View Post
Confirmed. The compression ratio is 10:1.

Tim
So different pistons, but same CR? Maybe made out of a cheaper material that handles less boost despite the same CR?
__________________
'98 M Roadster+'06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt
'11 Saab 9-3 XWD
'13 M-Sport 328i 6mt FOR SALE


E36/7: Dinan/RMS stage 2+ blower@13lbs of BOOST! 18" BBS LM's, too much more to list
F30: ForgeStar F14 19's summer-OZ Superleggera 17's winter/Rogue Catback/Integral Audio/AFE intake scoop/BMS stage 1
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-01-2013, 08:26 AM
tim330i's Avatar
tim330i tim330i is offline
Administrator
Location: Boston
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,760
Mein Auto: Ti Silver 03 M3
Cast instead of forged? Hard to say at this point.

Tim
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-01-2013, 08:48 AM
shabadoo25 shabadoo25 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Orlando, FL
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 237
Mein Auto: 2008 335i
I don't believe for a minute that the city mpg will be the same as the 328. Logic indicates it should be better.
__________________
2012 Alpine White F30 328i Leather Dakota Everest Grey/Sport Line/Premium/Premium Sound/Technology/STEPTRONIC/Rear View Camera/Heated Front Seats/Park Distance Control/Xenons/BMW Assist w/Enhanced USB/BMW Apps
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-01-2013, 09:41 AM
Carnook Carnook is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Canada
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 173
Mein Auto: BMW
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi View Post
What sucks: it is expected to have the same mpgs as the more powerful version, which is not really a surprise since displacement is the same.
The 328i mileage was reduced by the EPA from BMW's original estimates so perhaps thats why the 320i and 328i have the same. Maybe in the real world the 328i gets better mileage than the 320i. Or vice versa. Sorry, I'm confused.

Last edited by Carnook; 02-01-2013 at 09:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-01-2013, 10:17 AM
bmw_or_audi bmw_or_audi is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: California
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 898
Mein Auto: Passat 1.8T MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim330i View Post
As pointed out above the difference is the pistons. The exact difference is not clear to me as BMW USA lists the compression ratio the same. The turbo and everything else are 100% the same. I did a part number comparison here -

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=670647

Tim
I saw that great detective work post of yours.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-01-2013, 10:39 AM
bmw_or_audi bmw_or_audi is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: California
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 898
Mein Auto: Passat 1.8T MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by shabadoo25 View Post
I don't believe for a minute that the city mpg will be the same as the 328. Logic indicates it should be better.
But why? The engine is nearly the same. I would expect nearly the same gas mileage. Now if they had achieved the same power drop with a displacement reduction instead of a boost drop, then you would definitely get better gas mileage, especially on the freeway. I went to the UK site, where they list 3-digit mpgs, and the difference is indeed about 1.5% between the 328 and 320.

But they do have a lower Hp (170) Efficient Dynamic version that gives about 15-20% boost in fuel economy.

I am wondering whether this was a quick short term solution to cover the segment right below the 328i, where MB and especially Audi have a good presence.

Based on some simple scaling, they should be able to get this kind of power with a 1.6-17L engine. Perhaps they feel their diesel lineup covers that segment and it is not worth developing such an engine.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-01-2013, 11:35 AM
tim330i's Avatar
tim330i tim330i is offline
Administrator
Location: Boston
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,760
Mein Auto: Ti Silver 03 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi View Post
I saw that great detective work post of yours.
Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-01-2013, 11:50 AM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 174
Mein Auto: 2013 Q5 3.0T / 2012 335i
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi View Post
The marketing aspect of this has been debated to death already in other threads.

But in terms of engine specs, I think BMW could have done a lot better.

The facts: 180Hp/200lb-ft. But it seems to have everything the 328i has, i.e., VANOS & valvetronic. Is the only difference the turbo? Or maybe that is even the same and it is simply coded to produce less boost? The previous and nearly obsolete Audi/VW 2.0T develops 200Hp/207lb-ft and I don't even think it has variable valve technology. So what a seriously neutered and wasted engine is the 2.0T in the 320. It's a shame, really.

What sucks: it is expected to have the same mpgs as the more powerful version, which is not really a surprise since displacement is the same.

I think BMW was really lazy and considered only marketing. They could have used a smaller engine, with the same amount of power, but with higher efficiency. Audi has a 1.8T that develops 170Hp/236lb-ft and gets 40+mpg on the freeway. Now that is a power downgrade well worth considering. It makes sense. Perhaps BMW doesn't have the resources to develop yet another engine? Perhaps it is coming in 2014?

A 320i with such an engine would be a winner, not a castrated 328 for the badge whores.

N20 came in 3 state of tune from the start. One is optimized for performance (328i), one is optimized for efficiency (320i Efficient Dynamics), and one that is standard version (320i).

The thing to remember is the F30 320i replaced E90 320i, and the F30 320i ED replaced E90 318i... and they did so with more power and better fuel economy than the E90 version. We may think of 320i as a "neutered" 328i but that is just a matter of perspective. BMW gave us the performance version N20 first and sold it as the base model. The optics of introducing 320i now may make it seem like the engine is "neutered" but the fact is we got a great deal on the 328i vs. the rest of the world.

In EU fuel economy rating, 320i does perform slightly better than 328i (6.3 liter/100km vs 6.4) so I suspect the real world fuel economy will be pretty good despite identical EPA MPG ratings in the US.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-01-2013, 11:53 AM
Axxlrod Axxlrod is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: San Diego
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 104
Mein Auto: 2013 535i M sport
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi View Post
But why? The engine is nearly the same. I would expect nearly the same gas mileage. Now if they had achieved the same power drop with a displacement reduction instead of a boost drop, then you would definitely get better gas mileage, especially on the freeway. I went to the UK site, where they list 3-digit mpgs, and the difference is indeed about 1.5% between the 328 and 320.

But they do have a lower Hp (170) Efficient Dynamic version that gives about 15-20% boost in fuel economy.

I am wondering whether this was a quick short term solution to cover the segment right below the 328i, where MB and especially Audi have a good presence.

Based on some simple scaling, they should be able to get this kind of power with a 1.6-17L engine. Perhaps they feel their diesel lineup covers that segment and it is not worth developing such an engine.
Who knows what diesel engine we're going to get (and on what platform coupled to which tranny). Not to mention that the increased price of the diesel model will remove it from that lower segment.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-01-2013, 02:58 PM
volnedan volnedan is offline
Registered User
Location: Metro Detroit
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 37
Mein Auto: Infiniti G37S 6MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi View Post
The previous and nearly obsolete Audi/VW 2.0T develops 200Hp/207lb-ft and I don't even think it has variable valve technology.
The Audi 2.0T is rated at 210hp and 258lb-ft, which I believe has variable valve lift. Either way, I believe that the 320 engine output is underrated just like most of BMW's engines.

The butt dyno will be the true test of the vehicle's capability. From my test drives of a VW GLI back to back with an A4 (both in manual), the GLI's version of the 2.0T was much more responsive and felt faster. This is the ultimate judgement I am waiting for.

If I am a badge whore for buying the 320, then so be it. I've been called worse in my days.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-01-2013, 03:57 PM
bmw_or_audi bmw_or_audi is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: California
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 898
Mein Auto: Passat 1.8T MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by volnedan View Post
The Audi 2.0T is rated at 210hp and 258lb-ft, which I believe has variable valve lift.
I referred to the previous A4's 2.0T, not the current one you quote above. That older 2.0T making 200 hp/207 lb-ft is still used in cars like the A3, GTI, CC, and GLI. But it seems like it does have some sort of variable valve lift and/or timing; I started searching a little but got too lazy to get the definitive answer.

Quote:
...was much more responsive and felt faster. This is the ultimate judgement I am waiting for.
Butt-o-meters can be seriously innacurate But regardless, remember that the GLI is significantly lighter than the A4.

Quote:
If I am a badge whore for buying the 320, then so be it. I've been called worse in my days.
Don't take it too personally, it's just a figure of speech
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-01-2013, 03:58 PM
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Abuser of everything
Location: MTL
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,751
Mein Auto: BMW E90 2007
Quote:
A 320i with such an engine would be a winner, not a castrated 328 for the badge whores.
While being there, you could say that a 328ii with "such an engine" (whatever it is) would be a winner, not a castrated 335i for the badge whores. I don't agree with this.

The 320i should have come with what it had here in 2005; a 2.2L M54 NA I6, but with direct injection this time. And the 325i/328i with the same but higher displacement.

The recipe was great; BMW messed with it.
__________________
2007 E90 AW 323i Step | Lowered 1.25"/1" | BMW Performance Exhaust | Debadged | Scangauge II | Style 162 18" & 161 17" wheels & rear 15mm spacers

Last edited by Saintor; 02-01-2013 at 03:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-01-2013, 04:08 PM
bmw_or_audi bmw_or_audi is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: California
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 898
Mein Auto: Passat 1.8T MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
While being there, you could say that a 328ii with "such an engine" (whatever it is) would be a winner, not a castrated 335i for the badge whores. I don't agree with this.

The 320i should have come with what it had here in 2005; a 2.2L M54 NA I6, but with direct injection this time. And the 325i/328i with the same but higher displacement.

The recipe was great; BMW messed with it.
Now you are referring to the literal castration of two nuts cylinders. That's not the same engine anymore after the scalpel is done with it. I know I wouldn't be But the 320 engine is nearly identical to the 328's.

But I do like the idea of a 2.2 to 2.5L I6 turbo.

Audi has a 2.5L 5-cyl turbo in the TT-RS. It pumps out 360hp and 343 lb-ft. Now imagine a 2.2L I6 turbo, super smooth, very powerful, and with great gas mileage. Extra 2 cylinders do come at a cost though.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-01-2013, 05:42 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,223
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
While being there, you could say that a 328ii with "such an engine" (whatever it is) would be a winner, not a castrated 335i for the badge whores. I don't agree with this.

The 320i should have come with what it had here in 2005; a 2.2L M54 NA I6, but with direct injection this time. And the 325i/328i with the same but higher displacement.

The recipe was great; BMW messed with it.

__________________
'98 M Roadster+'06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt
'11 Saab 9-3 XWD
'13 M-Sport 328i 6mt FOR SALE


E36/7: Dinan/RMS stage 2+ blower@13lbs of BOOST! 18" BBS LM's, too much more to list
F30: ForgeStar F14 19's summer-OZ Superleggera 17's winter/Rogue Catback/Integral Audio/AFE intake scoop/BMS stage 1
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-01-2013, 06:25 PM
LegendsNeverDie LegendsNeverDie is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 904
Mein Auto: BMW 328i SP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
While being there, you could say that a 328ii with "such an engine" (whatever it is) would be a winner, not a castrated 335i for the badge whores. I don't agree with this.

The 320i should have come with what it had here in 2005; a 2.2L M54 NA I6, but with direct injection this time. And the 325i/328i with the same but higher displacement.

The recipe was great; BMW messed with it.
I kind of have to agree. I don't mind the turbo fours but I would take a good six over ANY turbo four.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Forum Navigation
Go Back   Bimmerfest - BMW Forums > BMW Model Discussions > 3 Series / 4 Series > F30 / F31 / F32 / F33 (2012 - current)
Today's Posts Search
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2011 performanceIX, Inc. All Rights Reserved .: guidelines .:. privacy .:. terms